Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[pakeha]

There are the Jerusalem or Lukan Priority and No Priority schools of thought regarding the synoptic Gospels.

In the Jerusalem-Lukan Priority Schools of thought, Luke is regarded as the first synoptic Gospel (being based on a now lost Gospel) with Mark coming next and finally Matthew.

The No Priority school of thought has many variations (Multi-source hypothesis, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, and Independence hypothesis) but all of them boil down to the idea of a common source (either a now lost proto gospel or oral traditions) This eliminates the need for any Gospel to be based on another making the dates of their creation far more fluid.

As for the dating of Mark being in the 70-85 range that is based on a "prophesy" regarding the fall of the second temple (Mark 13:1-2). I have found the Religious Tolerance site a lot better in getting date ranges then wikipedia.

"The gospel [Mark] was apparently written during a time of great tension between the conservative Jewish Christians, centered in Jerusalem and the more liberal Gentile Christians, spread throughout the Roman Empire." (The Gospel of Q -- the source gospel. The Gospel of Mark)

The problem with these early dates as I have made mention before is no Church Father before c130 makes any reference to the events in any known Gospel. Rather what you do get is Paul and OT references. So basically we are asked to believe that the Christians had the presence of mind to copy the Gospels from the date of their first writing but not the writings of any Church Father referencing them until about c130. At best we get one liners that cold have easily been woven into the Gospels if they were later documents.

Also note one curious thing. John would seem to fit Marcion's line of thought of the god of the Jews being an evil jealous inferior being to the god of the Christians (certainly such a being would use his followers to undermind any challenge to his divinity) to a T and yet he appears to not have used it suggesting it didn't exist when Marcion put together his bible c140 CE.

Thanks for the links and thoughts, maximara.
Off to read both what's been posted in JREF and what you've linked.
It'll make a nice change from reading about Sator Squares, which have a nasty feel to them, somehow.

 

[Belz...]

Isn't that terrible? Everyone disagrees with Bart Ehrman a leading New Testament Scholar!!

You disagree with him as well, so I don't see your problem.

Do you admit that we can now move on, since everyone agrees on this ?

Now, address this:

The standard of evidence is different for historical events simply because the certainty of conclusion is very, very low. Or, actually, the certainty is low because of the quality and quantity of the evidence, but when one asks for a demonstration to show why one arrives at the conclusion, you have to work backwards and mention the evidence; so the lower the certainty, the poorer the evidence.

 

[Craig B]

@dejudge

Originally Posted by Craig B: Eh? The traditional chronology, from memory, is David c 1,000 BCE; Abraham c 1,800 BCE. So what?

Originally Posted by dejudge:So what you ask? You will soon find out!!

Well I haven't found out yet, because all you did by way of response was to regurgitate chunks of your previous post.

 

[Belz...]

Like everything else, there seems to be some ambiguity here, with various scholars finding various fudges and workarounds.

Sounds to me like some of those "scholars" are doing strange gymnastics to ignore the text that's right before their eyes. Is there any passage that actually says that that's what Luke is doing ?

As far as I know, the two genealogies, fanciful as they are, are irreconcilible.

 

[Craig B]

As far as I know, the two genealogies, fanciful as they are, are irreconcilible.

Yes they are. Thus, they derive from different sources. What is interesting is that they are genealogies of Joseph. Yet they occur in Matthew and Luke, which are the only sources of the Virgin Birth in Bethlehem story. These virgin stories are different and irreconcilable too.

So we have two irreconcilable genealogies which contradict each other but are imbedded in gospels which contradict these genealogies by containing stories that also contradict each other.

That's why I like the idea that the gospels are assembled from different sources, and are not simply the product of an evil forger hundreds of years later.

 

[zugzwang]

Yes they are. Thus, they derive from different sources. What is interesting is that they are genealogies of Joseph. Yet they occur in Matthew and Luke, which are the only sources of the Virgin Birth in Bethlehem story. These virgin stories are different and irreconcilable too.

So we have two irreconcilable genealogies which contradict each other but are imbedded in gospels which contradict these genealogies by containing stories that also contradict each other.

That's why I like the idea that the gospels are assembled from different sources, and are not simply the product of an evil forger hundreds of years later.

Yes, the two genealogies seem to show that; but they can each be reconciled with virgin birth, can't they? The lineages show that Jesus is of the house of David, therefore qualified to be messiah; the virgin birth also shows his divine origin.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

Yes they are. Thus, they derive from different sources. What is interesting is that they are genealogies of Joseph. Yet they occur in Matthew and Luke, which are the only sources of the Virgin Birth in Bethlehem story. These virgin stories are different and irreconcilable too.

Actually, I think the key lurks right within the paragraph. What is Luke's intention in writing? To give an orderly account of what happened, in light of earlier written attempts to do so and the availablility of then-living teachers with apostolic-rooted educational pedigrees, but rival tales.

So, Luke is to be read with the knowledge that there are other versions. He will arrange, select, sometimes arbitrate disputes and other times present alternatives to what others have said before him. I find it significant that nowhere does Luke say that his is the factually correct version (compare the letters of Paul, for example). Protestant sola scriptura theories lie more than a millennium in Luke's future. Their ideas about "orderly" have nothing to do with him, and could have played no part in his authorial goals. Thus, the appearance of a factual assertion or depiction in Luke-Acts may simply be presenting a "possible" version of events, yielding an "existence proof" that the eseentials of what the diverse preachers teach are at least possible, even if the details are unreconciled and irreconcilable.

Luke does not say that Mary had a baby without having sex. He also doesn't say that Mary did have sex before having her first child, either. She says that she hadn't had sex before talking to an angel. Luke leaves it to his reader whether or not Mary got pregnant the only way that human beings can do that. I conjecture that Mathhew's solecist dry conception method had some constituency among Luke's readers, but the wet method is perennially popular. Luke simply declined to arbitrate the dispute. The essentials, that God was personally involved somehow, or at least took an interest, in Jesus' arrival earthside is vouchsafed by a supernatural being commissioned by God to clue Mary (and so Luke's readers) in on the situation.

It is the same angel who establishes, without equivocation, that Jesus is to be a descendant of David and the rightful heir to David's throne (1:32). That is an essential teaching. How those essential facts were achieved is inessential. There are two broad ways: through Joseph or through Mary. For the Joseph possibility, there is the much-discussed geneaology. There was already another one in circulation. Fine, the more ways something could have been realized, the more likely it is to be true. David being Jesus' ancestor is essential, who else is in the chain is inessential - or even an opportunity for Bible study chit-chat.

But if Jesus is not Joseph's child, then it is necessary that Mary descend from David if Gabriel spoke truly. And what dio you know? She behaves consistently with the Lucan fantasy of what a Davidic descendant must do in the world census, registering herself in person at Bethlehem (quite a feat in its own right, since she is at term).

Either way would vindicate the angel's statement about David and Jesus. Luke has no reason to insist on both, nor to care which way the reader likes better. Maybe the reader prefers some other way altogether; what's that to Luke? The idea that all the things Luke himself presents must each be true need not ever have entered Luke's head, or if it had, he needn't find that useful for achieving his goal. As to consistency with other Gospels - the canon doesn't exist yet, why would Luke even think that he must align himself with Matthew, because they both will happen to end up on somebody else's reading list long after he's dead?

That's why I like the idea that the gospels are assembled from different sources, and are not simply the product of an evil forger hundreds of years later.

See, that's the genius of it. The forger wanted you to think that. Only a truly superior mind can see through the deception. We are so fortunate that such a one has appeared among us. He is our savior, and future generations will call us blessed. Let us pray.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, the two genealogies seem to show that; but they can each be reconciled with virgin birth, can't they? The lineages show that Jesus is of the house of David, therefore qualified to be messiah; the virgin birth also shows his divine origin.

Of the house of David by virtue of Joseph being of the house of David. But if Joseph is not his father, then Jesus is not of David (in the flesh, as Paul specifies in Romans 1:3). Two irreconcilable claims, both tending to exalt Jesus, but in contradictory ways, are being made in the later Synoptics.

 

[pakeha]

Yes, the two genealogies seem to show that; but they can each be reconciled with virgin birth, can't they? The lineages show that Jesus is of the house of David, therefore qualified to be messiah; the virgin birth also shows his divine origin.

Why do they need to be reconciled with a virgin birth?

 

[zugzwang]

Of the house of David by virtue of Joseph being of the house of David. But if Joseph is not his father, then Jesus is not of David (in the flesh, as Paul specifies in Romans 1:3). Two irreconcilable claims, both tending to exalt Jesus, but in contradictory ways, are being made in the later Synoptics.

Yes, I get that; I just thought that Jacob is Jesus's legal father, and descends from the house of David, as therefore does Jesus, in Jewish law. On the other hand, this may well be a fundagelical bodge!

 

[dejudge]

Yes they are. Thus, they derive from different sources. What is interesting is that they are genealogies of Joseph. Yet they occur in Matthew and Luke, which are the only sources of the Virgin Birth in Bethlehem story. These virgin stories are different and irreconcilable too.


So we have two irreconcilable genealogies which contradict each other but are imbedded in gospels which contradict these genealogies by containing stories that also contradict each other.

That's why I like the idea that the gospels are assembled from different sources, and are not simply the product of an evil forger hundreds of years later.

You are exposing the problems with taking Matthew 1.1 at face value. Now you admit the genealogies are irreconcilable and are those of the supposed Joseph.

You have nothing left but total confusion.

The authors of Gospels deliberately wrote irreconcilable fiction to show that they were not writing history but some still insist that they can retrieve history from obvious irreconcilable fables.

I do not know what else the authors could have done to confirm that they wrote myth fables.

Why do you think the authors wrote that Jesus was born after a Virgin was made pregnant by a Ghost and excluded Jesus from the genealogies of Jews?

I think that they wanted people to know that they were not writing history.

What do you think?

 

[zugzwang]

Yes, I get that; I just thought that Jacob is Jesus's legal father, and descends from the house of David, as therefore does Jesus, in Jewish law. On the other hand, this may well be a fundagelical bodge!

Jacob = Joseph - can't edit for some reason.

 

[Craig B]

You are exposing the problems with taking Matthew 1.1 at face value. Now you admit the genealogies are irreconcilable and are those of the supposed Joseph.

Yes, I got that from Voltaire and Thomas Paine. It's, like, not a new insight.

 

[dejudge]

Craig B


Actually, I think the key lurks right within the paragraph. What is Luke's intention in writing? To give an orderly account of what happened, in light of earlier written attempts to do so and the availablility of then-living teachers with apostolic-rooted educational pedigrees, but rival tales.

So, Luke is to be read with the knowledge that there are other versions. He will arrange, select, sometimes arbitrate disputes and other times present alternatives to what others have said before him. I find it significant that nowhere does Luke say that his is the factually correct version (compare the letters of Paul, for example). Protestant sola scriptura theories lie more than a millennium in Luke's future. Their ideas about "orderly" have nothing to do with him, and could have played no part in his authorial goals. Thus, the appearance of a factual assertion or depiction in Luke-Acts may simply be presenting a "possible" version of events, yielding an "existence proof" that the eseentials of what the diverse preachers teach are at least possible, even if the details are unreconciled and irreconcilable.

Luke does not say that Mary had a baby without having sex. He also doesn't say that Mary did have sex before having her first child, either. She says that she hadn't had sex before talking to an angel. Luke leaves it to his reader whether or not Mary got pregnant the only way that human beings can do that. I conjecture that Mathhew's solecist dry conception method had some constituency among Luke's readers, but the wet method is perennially popular. Luke simply declined to arbitrate the dispute. The essentials, that God was personally involved somehow, or at least took an interest, in Jesus' arrival earthside is vouchsafed by a supernatural being commissioned by God to clue Mary (and so Luke's readers) in on the situation.

It is the same angel who establishes, without equivocation, that Jesus is to be a descendant of David and the rightful heir to David's throne (1:32). That is an essential teaching. How those essential facts were achieved is inessential. There are two broad ways: through Joseph or through Mary. For the Joseph possibility, there is the much-discussed geneaology. There was already another one in circulation. Fine, the more ways something could have been realized, the more likely it is to be true. David being Jesus' ancestor is essential, who else is in the chain is inessential - or even an opportunity for Bible study chit-chat.

But if Jesus is not Joseph's child, then it is necessary that Mary descend from David if Gabriel spoke truly. And what dio you know? She behaves consistently with the Lucan fantasy of what a Davidic descendant must do in the world census, registering herself in person at Bethlehem (quite a feat in its own right, since she is at term).

Either way would vindicate the angel's statement about David and Jesus. Luke has no reason to insist on both, nor to care which way the reader likes better. Maybe the reader prefers some other way altogether; what's that to Luke? The idea that all the things Luke himself presents must each be true need not ever have entered Luke's head, or if it had, he needn't find that useful for achieving his goal. As to consistency with other Gospels - the canon doesn't exist yet, why would Luke even think that he must align himself with Matthew, because they both will happen to end up on somebody else's reading list long after he's dead?

Where did you get your stories from? Your post is riddled with assumptions, guesswork, unevidenced assertions, baseless speculation and rethorical questions.

It is clear that the Gospels are not historical accounts but blatant invented myth fables. The authors had no intention of even harmonising their stories. Each author of the Jesus story exposed the others as monstrous fiction writers.

Not even the genealogies of the supposed Joseph were harmonised to give the impression that there were credible records of Joseph.

 

[maximara]

I'm still a bit murky on this: the only thing that the Frum thing tells us is that such a scenario is possible with Jesus. But how does it make MJ more likely than HJ or any other alternative (save Divine Jesus, of course) ?

You have to understand that a John Frum based MJ theory can also be a HJ one though only on I. Howard Marshall's broadest sense ie Jesus was a flesh and blood man as opposed to a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Dr Who.

As I have explained before you have Paul have this vision which gives an already existing vague messiah cult a new powerful direction.

Inspired by Paul's teaching one or more people take up the name Jesus and-or title Christ and preach their own take on Paul's message. It explains the 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 comment about other Jesuses other Gospels and other spirits.

In fact, this is similar to one of John Robertson's ideas back in 1910: "All that can rationally be claimed is that a teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs, may have Messianically uttered some of these teachings at various periods, presumably after the writing of the Pauline epistles." (Christianity and mythology)

The HJ position has to tap dance around why no one before c130 CE knows anything beyond Paul's vague vision based description of Jesus in his seven letters.

Based on what we know of history the two trials are clearly fictions but if the trials are fiction then what about the crucifixion itself? Given Pontius Pilate solution to problems seemed to be to send solders out to kill the trouble makers would a real Jesus even been crucified or simply run through with a sword?

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

Where did you get your stories from? Your post is riddled with assumptions, guesswork, unevidenced assertions, baseless speculation and rethorical questions.

In other words, I read the material, was unable to interview the author, and was unwilling to impose upon the material the preconceptions of other readers. Very perceptive of you to notice.

The authors had no intention of even harmonising their stories.

Yes, I said that in my post.

Each author of the Jesus story exposed the others as monstrous fiction writers.

Really? I thought your theory was that it was all forgery.

Not even the genealogies of the supposed Joseph were harmonised to give the impression that there were credible records of Joseph.

There's nothing in Matthew or Luke that proposes that either genealogy was a "record" of anybody. Also, as I mentioned in my post, there is no reason to expect that Luke would have sought to harmonize his with Matthew's. Disjunctive argumentation, especially on peripheral or ancillary points is an admissible strategy for an advocate, and plainly disjunctive argumentation is what Luke offered on this peripheral point.

maximara

Inspired by Paul's teaching one or more people take up the name Jesus and-or title Christ and preach their own take on Paul's message.

Why would anybody, "inspired by Paul's teaching," pretend to be Jesus? Paul's teaching is that when Jesus, the Christ, appears on Earth again, the dead will rise and the living will become immortal aviators. Right then. Walking Jesus talking to mortals refutes Paul's teaching.

Now, any Jewish man can, and some did, pretend to be the Annointed before, during and after Paul's lifetime. That opportunity has some relevance to understanding both many HJ and many MJ theories. But there's no role for Paul in Jesus' story unless Jesus died before Paul shows up and discovers him to be alive, but living in glorious heavenly seclusion, awaiting his cue to return.

It explains the 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 comment about other Jesuses other Gospels and other spirits.

Which, unfortunately, already speaks for itself.

Given Pontius Pilate solution to problems seemed to be to send solders out to kill the trouble makers would a real Jesus even been crucified or simply run through with a sword?

Or, as pakeha has proposed, might the Jewish authoritties simply have stoned the guy? These are interesting ideas - but if they are true, require a specific living man to have died because of how other people reacted to his ideas or actions. That is a big part of many folks' "historical Jesus who counts" requirements.

 

[Belz...]

You have to understand that a John Frum based MJ theory can also be a HJ one though only on I. Howard Marshall's broadest sense ie Jesus was a flesh and blood man as opposed to a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Dr Who.

I can't help but notice that you don't actually answer my question: how does John Frum make MJ more likely than HJ or any other alternative (save Divine Jesus, of course) ?

As I have explained before you have Paul have this vision which gives an already existing vague messiah cult a new powerful direction.

Which just begs the question: what was the source of that cult ?

The HJ position has to tap dance around why no one before c130 CE knows anything beyond Paul's vague vision based description of Jesus in his seven letters.

You mean why was this obscure preacher not known worldwide back then ?

 

[dejudge]

Yes, I got that from Voltaire and Thomas Paine. It's, like, not a new insight.

So you knew all along that Matthew 1.1 did not really help your HJ argument. Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and you are still trying to figure out why the genealogies are irreconcilable.

Do you think that the authors would write that Jesus was born of a Ghost if people knew actually him and his father?

 

[Craig B]

So you knew all along that Matthew 1.1 did not really help your HJ argument. Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin and you are still trying to figure out why the genealogies are irreconcilable.

Do you think that the authors would write that Jesus was born of a Ghost if people knew actually him and his father?

You do write the strangest things. Here is the solution to the matters you refer to.

Jesus was in origin an ordinary person born in a normal manner. There was therefore no record of his birth. After his execution, people started retrospectively to attribute supernatural qualities to him. Some invented genealogies, indicating that he was of Messianic (i.e. Davidic) descent, through his father, Joseph.

Two versions of these productions are to be found in the later Synoptics. (Mark knows nothing about them. They hadn't been invented yet, when gMark was composed.)

Other people concocted magic birth stories, which necessarily included references to virgins and Bethlehem, derived from their cockeyed understanding of OT passages, taken to be prophecies.

Two versions of these productions are to be found in the later Synoptics. (Mark knows nothing about them. They hadn't been invented yet, when gMark was composed.)

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke picked up some of these things and incorporated them in their writings, ignoring the inconsistencies and textual conflicts that resulted.

That is why we have irreconcilable genealogies, which themselves are irreconcilable with the birth stories, which are in turn irreconcilable with each other. All this is as a whole irreconcilable with the other two gospels, Mark and John. These two gospels are of course mutually irreconcilable, because Mark makes Jesus special only from the time of his baptism, while John makes him special even at the Creation of the Universe.

Each and every part of this material is irreconcilable with the earliest extant source, Paul, who, in Romans 1, makes Jesus become special at the time of the Resurrection.

OK?

 

[dejudge]

You do write the strangest things. Here is the solution to the matters you refer to.

Jesus was in origin an ordinary person born in a normal manner. There was therefore no record of his birth. After his execution, people started retrospectively to attribute supernatural qualities to him. Some invented genealogies, indicating that he was of Messianic (i.e. Davidic) descent, through his father, Joseph.

Just as I expected. You make up your own stories from your imagination and then believe them. Tell me more of your story that is written in the palm of your hands.

You know that there was no record of the birth of Jesus??

There is a record but you don't like it.

Why don't you like the record of the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1?

Because it is evidence that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

You don't like the Bible but you cherry-pick your history from it.

You are basically a cherry-picking believer of the NT.

I get the impression that you only believe 1 verse in Matthew 1.

Two versions of these productions are to be found in the later Synoptics. (Mark knows nothing about them. They hadn't been invented yet, when gMark was composed.)

Jesus was already walking on the sea and transfiguring before gMark was written.

What kind of conception would produce a transfiguring sea water walker?

The author of Matthew used virtually all the stories in gMark and declared that the transfiguring Son of God was born of a Ghost.

Other people concocted magic birth stories, which necessarily included references to virgins and Bethlehem, derived from their cockeyed understanding of OT passages, taken to be prophecies.

It was extremely plausible that Jesus was born of a Ghost. Once the concocted story was plausible people of antiquity would believed the Son of God could be born of a Ghost and a Virgin and do all the miracles in the stories.

You seem to be concocting a plausible Jesus for the 21st century believers and do so from your imagination.

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke picked up some of these things and incorporated them in their writings, ignoring the inconsistencies and textual conflicts that resulted.

That is why we have irreconcilable genealogies, which themselves are irreconcilable with the birth stories, which are in turn irreconcilable with each other. All this is as a whole irreconcilable with the other two gospels, Mark and John. These two gospels are of course mutually irreconcilable, because Mark makes Jesus special only from the time of his baptism, while John makes him special even at the Creation of the Universe.

Each and every part of this material is irreconcilable with the earliest extant source, Paul, who, in Romans 1, makes Jesus become special at the time of the Resurrection.

OK?

OK? You're OK with your irreconcilable stories? I am not OK with your total confusion [mutually irreconcilables].

The NT stories of Jesus are irreconcilable with history.

The NT is a compilation of Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.